Henry v. Henderson

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1901

Henry v. Henderson, 79 Miss. 452 (Miss. 1901)

Whitfield

Opinion of the Court

Whitfield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The code 1892, § 547, expressly provides that that form of multifariousness which consists in joining in one bill several distinct and disconnected matters against the same defendants, shall not be a ground of objection to the bill. ThisQhas been *455held to be a statutory abolition of this form of multifariousness as a ground of demurrer. Insurance Co. v. Humphries, 64 Miss., 258, 1 So. Rep., 232. There is but one defendant here, sued in one capacity. But, aside from this, the chief object of this bill was to secure a construction of the will, in which construction all the parties were interested. Such a construction was necessary to determine their respective rights. In no proper sense could the bill be called multifarious, independently of -the statute.

Reversed, demurrer overruled, and thirty da/ys given to answer from the filing of the mandate in the court T>elow.

Reference

Full Case Name: Delia W. Henry v. Thomas R. Henderson
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Chancery Pleadings. MulUfcuriousness. Code 1892, § 547. Under code 1892, $ 547, so providing, that form of multifariousness which consists in joining in one hill several distinct and disconnected matters against the same defendant is not an objection to the bill. 2. Same. Will. Construction. Devisees. Executor. Accounting. Income. A bill by the devisees against the executor of the will to recover the income from the devised property, for an accounting as to the sui’plns from such income, and for the payment to them of money wrongfully expended on other property, and for a construction of the will, is not multifarious, independently of the statute.